Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10121 (0.88 seconds)
Documents citing Manoj Sharma vs State & Ors on 16 October, 2008

Sri Ashish Kanagali vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 30 September, 2022

14. Having carefully considered the singular facts and circumstances of the present case, and also the law relating to the continuance of criminal cases where the complainant and the accused had settled their differences and had arrived at an amicable arrangement, we see no reason to differ with the view taken in Manoj Sharma case [Manoj Sharma v. State, (2008) 16 SCC 1: (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 145] and several decisions of this Court delivered thereafter with respect to the doctrine of judicial restraint. In concluding hereinabove, we are not unmindful of the view recorded in the decisions cited at the Bar that depending on the attendant facts, continuance of the criminal proceedings, after a compromise has been arrived at between the complainant and the accused, would amount to abuse of process of court and an exercise in futility since the trial would be prolonged and ultimately, it may end in a decision which may be of no consequence to any of the parties."
Karnataka High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 23 November, 2010

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on three decisions of this Court, all by two Judge Benches. They are B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2008) 9 SCC 677; and Manoj Sharma vs. State and -2- Others (2008) 16 SCC 1. In these decisions, this Court has indirectly permitted compounding of non-compoundable offences. One of us, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju, was a member to the last two decisions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 57 - Full Document

Mohd. Azhar And Others vs State on 10 November, 2009

In the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State after placing reliance on the earlier decisions of the Crl. M.C. No. 3614/2009 Page 6 of 11 Apex Court in B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana 2003 (4) SCC 675 and the decision in Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another JT 2008 (9) SC 192 the Hon'ble Division Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altmas Kabir and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mr. Markandey Katju directed quashing of the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR registered under section 420/468/471/34/120 B of IPC after allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court. While agreeing with the conclusion of Hon'ble Justice Altamas Kabir, Hon'ble Justice Markandey Katju penned down a separate judgment.In his judgment Hon'ble Mr. Justice Katju felt that the question as to whether quashing can be directed even in non-compoundable cases or not based on the compromise requires consideration by the larger Bench. At the same time in para 23 the Hon'ble Judge observed that the proceedings in non-compoundable cases cannot be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or in writ jurisdiction on the basis of compromise.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - K Gambhir - Full Document

R.Vasanthi Stanley vs State Rep. By

In Manoj Sharma vs. State and Others, MANU/SC/8122/2008 a question was also arisen as to whether a first information report under Sections 420, 468, 471, 341 and 120(B) I.P.C., could be quashed either under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when the accused and the complainant have compromised and settled the matter between themselves. This question was considered by the Division Bench comprising their Lordships Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE ALTAMAS KABIR and Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU. While writing Judgment, His Lordship Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE ALTAMAS KABIR has answered in the following manner in paragraph No.8:
Madras High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - T Mathivanan - Full Document

R.N. Sharma vs C.B.I. on 5 April, 2011

21. On reading of this letter, it is apparent that Punjab National Bank has settled the dispute under civil suit for `1.51 crores, out of which the accused company deposited `1.45 crores in cash and gave three post-dated cheques for `2 lakhs each against the aforesaid `6 lakhs of the said amount. There is no promise extended by the bank in this certificate that it shall withdraw its complaint or assist the accused persons in getting the complaint quashed. Thus, in my considered view, the judgments in Manoj Sharma Vs. State, Nikhil Merchant Vs. CBI Crl.M.C. Nos. 3066/2008 & 3772/2008 Page 10 of 14 and Jagdish Chanana Vs. State of Haryana are of no help to the petitioner in seeking quashing of the FIR.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - A Bharihoke - Full Document

Vinod Smalta vs Block Elementary Education Officer And ... on 13 December, 2024

45. Para 27 of the decision in Manoj Sharma [Manoj Sharma v. State, (2008) 16 SCC 1 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 145] which contains the opinion of Markandey Katju, J., reads as follows : (SCC p. 10) "27. There can be no doubt that a case under Section 302IPC or other serious offences like those under Sec- tions 395, 307 or 304-B cannot be compounded, and hence proceedings in those provisions cannot be quashed by the High Court in the exercise of its power under Section 482CrPC or writ jurisdiction on the basis of compromise. However, in some other cases (like those akin to a civil nature), the proceedings can be quashed by the High Court if the parties have come to an amicable settlement even though the provisions are not compoundable. Where a line is to be drawn will have to be decided in some later decisions of this Court, prefer- ably by a larger Bench (so as to make it more authorita- tive). Some guidelines will have to be evolved in this connection, and the matter cannot be left at the sole un- guided discretion of Judges; otherwise, there may be conflicting decisions and judicial anarchy. A judicial dis- cretion has to be exercised on some objective guiding principles and criteria and not on the whims and fancies 13 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:14363 ) of individual Judges. Discretion, after all, cannot be the Chancellor's foot."
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Harish Jain vs C.B.I. on 5 April, 2011

21. On reading of this letter, it is apparent that Punjab National Bank has settled the dispute under civil suit for `1.51 crores, out of which the accused company deposited `1.45 crores in cash and gave three post-dated cheques for `2 lakhs each against the aforesaid `6 lakhs of the said amount. There is no promise extended by the bank in this certificate that it shall withdraw its complaint or assist the accused persons in getting the complaint quashed. Thus, in my considered view, the judgments in Manoj Sharma Vs. State, Nikhil Merchant Vs. CBI Crl.M.C. Nos. 3066/2008 & 3772/2008 Page 10 of 14 and Jagdish Chanana Vs. State of Haryana are of no help to the petitioner in seeking quashing of the FIR.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - A Bharihoke - Full Document

Fasihurrahmana And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 1 May, 2025

In this regard, the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State (supra), Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra) and Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand (supra), which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants finds force that this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can set aside the impugned order, as the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A Mathur - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next